fixing the dc penalty

[HealByColor]

That seems correct @krumme
If a player dc and we see it or somone reports they will get the appropriate points and unvouch

[aRt)Y]

@eldryan That's once again your interpretation.. However, at ENT, we do things the way ENT interprets it. Any kind of quitting the game is leaving. Be it econnreset, disconnect, rq or whatever. You dont like it? Fine. It wont change how it is officially handled though - and that's the basis of discussions. You've quoted your post, fine. From what I see, the "reported or not" is trivial though as your suggestion still has the criteria "if [...] obviously losing".

I never believed there's 100% peace within the league, however, the reports so far have proven that players don't do what you described as a possibility. To make my opinion clear here: I really dont care if players do it. Doesn't make a difference to me if you maphacked two weeks ago and got reported for it now or not.

Regarding PES, it only takes me a few minutes to implement. All the current DC points can be transferred and erased from the PPS. The only question unanswered yet are:
* community answer?
* still want scaled unvouch durations for dcs or just ELO?

[eldryan]

I never believed there's 100% peace within the league, however, the reports so far have proven that players don't do what you described as a possibility. To make my opinion clear here: I really dont care if players do it. Doesn't make a difference to me if you maphacked two weeks ago and got reported for it now or not.

That's because no one has reached the point where they can insta-ban someone for long enough to make it usable.... And it not happening in 2 weeks of the system being implemented is hardly a conclusive showing. I'm not talking about MH - rather dcs, accidental pulls, unintentional no heals, afk, etc. which this system is banning for.

As far as only penalizing someone who is losing - that's not a disclaimer. You can look at the scores even - if one team is more then 30 points below with average score, or his team has players below a borderline value (value + 500 * (players with heal/players without heal) = recommended value + 1/3 lumber other team per player can send ) while the other team has a player that is above value, dc penalty. Otherwise, don't. Black and White, and should be done regardless of whether reported or not. What exactly does your comment of triviality relate to this?

Anyways, anything would be better then this system. If fixed, can archive this thread and make a new one solely concerning new system to make it more concise. Pretty sure the voting is quite obvious, as no one voted for current system.

[HealByColor]

I think what @art)y is trying to say is no matter the rule we decide to go with staff will not determine if this team wins or loses. In my opinion I've seen so many games that look like 0% chance you could win and someone that team wins.
The rules that are being created for the future should be across the board. Meaning that we will not determine situations. Example: we clogged because we didn't have the towers to avoid it and continued to push and leak.

[eldryan]

I think what @art)y is trying to say is no matter the rule we decide to go with staff will not determine if this team wins or loses. In my opinion I've seen so many games that look like 0% chance you could win and someone that team wins.
The rules that are being created for the future should be across the board. Meaning that we will not determine situations. Example: we clogged because we didn't have the towers to avoid it and continued to push and leak.

I agree that staff shouldn't decide who wins prematurely, but if the team differential is at a certain level then calling the game ending in a few lvls/next level is really not a stretch. this formula just identifies games that are so clearly uneven that a dc penalty should be applied as a measure to identify possible PP from team inequality (the reason the dc penalty was implemented to satisfy those unhappy with !draw).

considering how strongly I weighted heals, this would really required a team to be losing hard after 10 and without much lumber, in which case the plan is basically hoping someone on the other team dcs.

[aRt)Y]

@eldryan You should get some people to comment on it or the likelihood of this being archived increases.

[eldryan]

@eldryan You should get some people to comment on it or the likelihood of this being archived increases.

13 people already voted. no one is going to read 5 pages and comment, that's way too much time commitment. all the active users have already posted in favor.

players posted in favor of switch: me, krumme, supersexyy, diablo_, healbycolor, god.lik3, elektro-.

neutral: greatbeyond

players against: none

although Ilocos suggestion got 20 votes, 13 votes against current system 0 for it is more one-sided then his suggestion, which had 1-2 votes in favor of current system. Even if the next 7 people voted against (very absurd proposition) this would still be lopsided. why wait?

[aRt)Y]

Because they voted prior to reading the fine print. Major questions are still unanswered.

[eldryan]

Because they voted prior to reading the fine print. Major questions are still unanswered.

As far as PES? The dc penalty is the main point.

Frankly, if you choose the !top and !Bot list to reflect the official elo, while balancing by unofficial ELO, it would basically be the same thing as the dc penalty except it'd be slightly harder to earn the elo back - for example I'd have to finish the season as a 1200 mmr player to get a 1000 official score with 10 penalties - if I didn't take into account this affect when making games with !challenge etc.

players can make minor adjustments to compromise this effect: eg. halving the difference between official and unofficial and balancing teams slightly differently using !challenge or !swap with the differences implemented. This would make the teams have a dc penalty effect felt immediately if those players chose while at the same time not giving them the full advantage an entire dc pen would've given in team make-ups.

Whether players have come up with exact and meaningful ways of compromising the elo alteration is questionable, however the elo affect is obviously flexible and can be suited to match both parties interest even with a system such as PES. the fine print isn't so fine, but it is still accountable.

[aRt)Y]

I just mentioned it because many players disliked having the season ranked by PES - but it's gonna be like that if you want ELO so badly. Furthermore, we are thinking about not applying points to disconnects with gproxy but only to those which disced without having gproxy. The ELO (still in discussion whether to apply positive ELO), will be applied in both cases.

So since that is now decided, how would you handle frequent disconnects with gproxy which by the concept above wont be penalized with points, e.g. in your case? People are gonna complain that you can play on 24/7.

[eldryan]

So since that is now decided, how would you handle frequent disconnects with gproxy which by the concept above wont be penalized with points, e.g. in your case? People are gonna complain that you can play on 24/7.

isn't it dc penaltied? they'll say "thanks for the elo"? or if there's no positive ELO given (to eliminate the incentive to report) maybe just a bit annoyed, same as now. I've been obsing games anyways and no complaints so far in my case. typically no1 complains about dc - the complaints are generally about something else eg. godlik3's comment that you deleted.

[aRt)Y]

As there havent been any new comments regarding how to draft it, I will archive the thread.

We have discussed it among staff though and will most likely introduce PES on the weekend. More details then.